1997 (4) TMI 510 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of 64 quintals of black peppers.
2. Compliance with Sections 110 and 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the reasonable belief for seizure.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of BSF personnel in the seizure process.
5. Requirement of overt act for constituting an attempt to export.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of 64 Quintals of Black Peppers
The petitioners, conducting business as "Bengal Traders," challenged the detention and seizure of 64 quintals of black peppers from their godown by BSF personnel and customs officials. The seizure was alleged to be arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioners had provided all necessary documentation, including the sales tax registration certificate and stock registers.

2. Compliance with Sections 110 and 113 of the Customs Act, 1962
The seizure list issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, claimed that the goods were seized on the reasonable belief that they were liable to be exported outside India and thus liable to confiscation under Sections 100 and 113 of the Customs Act. The petitioners argued that there was no attempt to export the goods, and the seizure on the ground that the goods were "liable to be exported" was not valid under the Customs Act.

3. Validity of the Reasonable Belief for Seizure
The petitioners contended that the seizure was not based on a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The affidavit from the customs authorities stated that the godown was not approved for storing black peppers and that the goods were stored without proper documentation, leading to the belief that they might be exported illegally. However, the court found that there was no overt act or material indicating an attempt to export the goods illegally, making the reasonable belief for seizure invalid.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of BSF Personnel in the Seizure Process
The BSF personnel conducted the initial raid and removed the goods without preparing a seizure list or passing an order of seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The court found that the BSF personnel acted beyond their jurisdiction by removing the goods without following due process.

5. Requirement of Overt Act for Constituting an Attempt to Export
The court emphasized that for goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, there must be an overt act indicating an attempt to export the goods illegally. The mere storage of goods without proper documentation does not constitute an attempt to export. The court cited various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Md. Eaqub, which highlighted the necessity of an overt act for constituting an "attempt."

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order of seizure, declaring it arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The respondents were directed to release the seized goods to the petitioners forthwith. The court found that the seizure was not supported by a reasonable belief of an attempt to export the goods illegally, as required under Sections 110 and 113 of the Customs Act. The BSF personnel's actions were also deemed unwarranted and contrary to the law.